Committee converts kratom regulation bill into study after fiscal and implementation concerns

The House Health Committee on an amended voice vote converted House Bill 15-66, a bill proposing a product registration and licensure regime for kratom sales, into a study to give sponsors and state agencies more time to work through fiscal and implementation details.

Committee Chair Representative Ruby and Department of Health and Human Services staff raised fiscal concerns about the bill’s requirement for a state-approved product listing and an electronic registration system. Mr. Jason Wall, Department of Health and Human Services, told the committee the department expects significant IT and staffing costs if it must maintain a registry and verify each distinct kratom product and strain.

"If the amendment did not remove the registered product listing, that is going to create expenses for the state, anticipating to get an IT solution to try to make this an electronic way for retailers to be able to submit documentation electronically to the department," Wall said.

The department also flagged workload tied to the sheer variety of kratom products. "When you think about kratom, there are a number of different strains ... so if a product gets registered with the state... if they get another shipment in of capsules made with a different strain, the department would view that as specifically a different product type that would need to be registered," Wall said.

Committee members said those fiscal and operational uncertainties supported moving the bill to a study rather than advancing immediate regulatory requirements. Representative Freilich proposed the study motion and Representative Anderson seconded the motion to advance a do-pass recommendation as amended into a study; the clerks’ roll call showed the motion carried 11-1.

Representative Rohrer, who worked with the sponsor and industry on draft amendments, said the amendments sent to the department were a starting point for further work and stressed the sponsor bears responsibility for producing a form that will stand up to Senate review.

The committee’s action places the bill into a study process so the sponsor, industry representatives (including a Kratom Association lobbyist) and the Department of Health and Human Services can refine language, address the fiscal note and return with a clearer implementation plan.

What the committee did not decide was the underlying policy question of how kratom should be controlled—law enforcement, licensure, or product registration—only that more work is needed before imposing state-level registration and IT requirements.

The committee’s study recommendation preserves the department’s option to request changes to the amendment language and to continue negotiations with the sponsor and industry during the interim.

Votes at the committee on the amended motion were recorded by the clerk as 11 in favor, 1 opposed.

The bill will return later with the results of the study and any revised fiscal estimates and draft language for committee consideration.